As a partner with Blank Rome LLP, I am an advisor to U.S. and global energy companies of all types regarding the full range of legal, public policy, government relations, state and federal regulatory, financial, corporate, and labor matters. I've had more than 20 years of energy industry and public policy experience at the highest corporate and policy-making levels, and was Secretary of Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) under Governor Tom Corbett. The views expressed are those of the author, not of Blank Rome. Follow me @MikeKrancer

I’m not referring to the President’s State of the Union Address last month. In that speech, the President made no mention of how nuclear energy production actually fits into what he called his Administration’s “all of the above” clean energy policy. Nor did he mention how protecting the health of America’s existing nuclear power fleet is critical to the realization of our nation’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals. In fact, as many nuke industry chiefs will tell you, he’s been mostly mum about the industry for years.

Then, last week, a top Administration energy official swept in to clear up the matter. Yes, the Administration supports nuclear power—and it thinks that the growing list of nuclear power plants being shut down or slated for shutdown is a serious climate-change threat.

On global warming, at least, Obama has always been eager to make his views clear. For example, here is an excerpt from his State of the Union speech last month:

But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact. And when our children’s children look us in the eye and ask if we did all we could to leave them a safer, more stable world, with new sources of energy, I want us to be able to say yes, we did.

Enter Peter Lyons, the Department of Energy’s (DOE) assistant secretary for nuclear energy. Lyons, a former Nuclear Regulatory Commission member and science advisor to former Senator Pete Domenici, spoke up about the Administration’s views on nuclear power at the Platts 10th Annual Nuclear Energy Conference in Washington, D.C. last week.

Nuclear plants produce plenty of steam, but no greenhouse gasses. Is Obama a believer?

And he did not hold back. He said he was gravely concerned that the loss of existing healthy nuclear plants will cost us dearly in terms of increased carbon emissions.

Lyons said that the DOE studied a scenario where 30 percent of the county’s 100 reactors would be shut down. He said the DOE regards many of the nuclear plant closures currently on the calendar as premature. If those closures were to go ahead as per that scenario, there would be no way to meet our goal of cutting emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.

Lyons says a major problem is that the market presently has no mechanism to sensibly recognize the value of carbon-free power generation, particularly nuclear power. “When well-run, clean [nuclear] energy sources are forced out of the marketplace due to a combination of reduced demand, low natural gas prices and market structure,” Lyons was quoted as saying by the Greenwire energy-news service, “our markets are providing the wrong signals.”

Others have been ringing this alarm for a while. Last November, four of the world’s top climate scientists expressed their alarm in an open letter to environmental organizations. Their message: Stop opposing nuclear power if you are serious about arresting climate change. Last October, a coalition of global investors called on the largest carbon emitters to assess risks under climate action and “business as usual” scenarios. And recent surveys show that citizens of all political stripes are demanding action. But Lyons’ speech was the clearest endorsement yet of nuclear energy from the Obama Administration.

What’s it mean for the nuke industry and for our zero emissions energy future?

Nuclear power accounts for 20 percent of the electricity generated in the U.S. and for 64 percent of all zero-carbon emission sources. But many nuke power plants are seeing their profits squeezed these days. There’s very little growth in the demand for electricity, thanks to energy efficiency, demand response, and a hobbled economy. Low gas prices have further reduced energy prices—and the profitability of the existing nuclear fleet.

Nuclear plants aren’t subsidized like other non-carbon-emitting energy plants are. Solar and wind are doubly subsidized. They receive direct taxpayer dollars—about $12.1 billion in the last round of the renewal of the Production Tax Credit. And in about 30 states and the District of Columbia, Renewable Portfolio Standard laws mandate that consumers buy a certain amount of the wind and solar power.

Meanwhile, the U.S. has recently been closing viable plants like Wisconsin’s Kewaunee, which in 2008 had won a license extension to 2033, and Vermont Yankee, which in 2011 had its operating license extended for 20 years. Replacing these two plants, even with new, highly efficient plants that burn natural gas, will lead to millions of tons of new carbon emissions.

Morningstar’s Utilities Observer identified a half-dozen other nuclear plants in danger of closure. They include Entergy’s Indian Point plant, which powers Manhattan; the Fitzpatrick and Pilgrim plants in Plymouth, Mass.; Exelon’s Ginna plant, near Rochester, N.Y., and its Three Mile Island plant in Middletown, Pa.; and FirstEnergy’s Davis Besse Plant, near Toledo, Ohio.

The results of a wholesale shutdown of nuclear plants in Germany show that Lyons’ concerns are warranted. After a massive earthquake and tsunami in Japan led to the catastrophic failure of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in March 2011, Germany rushed to shutter its nuclear fleet. According to the International Energy Agency, German nuclear reactors had been producing 30 to 35 terawatt-hours per year—about one-quarter of the country’s total power. (Not so far off from the United States’ total nuclear fleet contribution of about 19 percent.) Naturally, the only energy source capable of making up for that loss of German generating power has been fossil fuel.

Robert Wilson, a mathematical ecologist at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow, Scotland, analyzed the impact. In an article titled, “Germany’s Nuclear Folly,” Wilson concluded that, depending on whether Germany turned to natural gas or coal to fill the hole left by the loss of the nuclear plants, the move has resulted in a whopping 15 million to 30 million additional tons of carbon dioxide pouring into the atmosphere each year, respectively.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Ah, the old capacity factor lie! Are you aware of that? Windfarms, on average, produce ~30% of rated capacity, while nuclear plants produce~90%.

EIA data shows that wind generated ~4% of US electricity. Nuclear ~19%. So, more like the equivalent of 20 nuclear plants.

Of course the real point is that intermittent sources like wind can only practically generate about 20% of our overall electricity. As France knows, nuclear has no such limitations, and can produce ~80%.

That’s peak capacity, or average capacity. The av cap for new turbines in America is 35%. So cut the numbers you site down to one-third.

And, renewables don’t produce baseload power, which has to be a rock-solid, continuous 24-7-365 stream of 60Hz AC current. Anything else is simply a sideshow contribution to the grid, and if there’s too much of it, it’ll produce chaos.

And, the wind and solar industries both predict that their equipment will only last 15 – 25 years. Reactors last 60. So take that ⅓ and third it again.

“Renewable-energy capacity in the U.S. almost doubled from 2009 to 2012, helping reduce the nation’s carbon-dioxide emissions last year to the lowest since 1994, according to a Bloomberg New Energy Finance report.”

You talk about people (leaders, in fact) being uninformed. Has it ever occurred to you that rabid anti nuclear sites (or “studies”) are not a legitimate source of information?

ALL energy sources have some net CO2 emissions. All credible studies show that nuclear’s net CO2 emissions are a tiny fraction of fossil fuels (~2% of coal and ~5% of gas), and are similar to renewables.

The article said that the US uses nuclear for 20% of *electricity*. That statement is true (may be 19% now). Wind, BTW, is 4% of *electricity* (1/5 of nuclear). Solar is ~0.1% of electricity.

Any releases from nuclear power plants are having zero impact on public health. The highest exposure for any members of the public is ~0.1% of what they get from natural background. Natural background exposures vary by almost a factor of 10, and no correlations between natural background exposure and any health impact has ever been observed.

Meanwhile, coal plants cause ~13,000 American deaths every single year. Anyone who claims to be concerned about public health and the environment should focus (almost exclusivelly) on coal. Given that intermittent renewables cannot provide more than a fraction of overall power, it comes down to a choice between nuclear and fossil fuels for most of it, and nuclear is orders of magnitude better than fossil.

Nuclear power plants do not emit dangerous radiation, unless they’re severely damaged. In fact, they emit less than a banana’s worth. A nuclear plant is one of the most radiation-free spaces on the planet, by actual dosimeter measurements.

Three Mile Island, the worst nuclear reactor accident in American history, killed no one. The worst dose of radiation by those living closest to the plant was equivalent to one half of one chest X-ray.

The amount of steel and concrete (both of which emit CO2) needed to build a 500MW reactor is a tiny fraction of the steel and concrete needed to build a wind or solar farm. A 500 MW reactor will pay off its carbon construction debt in about 10 days, while a wind or solar farm will take 6 months.

Plus, wind and solar equipment only last about 20 years, and reactors last 60. So triple the “carbon karma” for wind and solar to about 18 months, compared to the 10 days a reactor lasting years has to make up to be green.

The physics professor you quote is factually incorrect on several counts. Wind and solar produce intermittent, not baseload power. Far less efficient. Far less people have died from reactor construction and accidents – including Chernobyl – than have died installing rooftop solar and from working on wind turbines. Reactors take up a tiny fraction of land compared to renewables, use far, far less steel and concrete, produce baseload power, with far less carbon emissions, and with far lower accident rates in both their construction and operation, than renewables.